eyeball Posted March 22, 2010 Report Share Posted March 22, 2010 I have to go with YEGman. Just be nice and polite and in most cases you'll probably get through with no more trouble than Obiwan Kenobi did in the Death Star. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted March 23, 2010 Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 Yegmann, Just so we are clear: you do realize that you cannot carry more than 100ml of liquid onto the plane unless it has been sealed as a purchase from within the secure shopping part of the airport? Otherwise, it is checked. Yes, one could, if he has time, go back and buy some luggage from one of the nice stores and place the liquor in the luggage and check that in (and pay any fees for checking in a second bag). Presumably, Blackburn could have taken the time to use that option rather than argue with security over rules that he helped implement in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted March 23, 2010 Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 It was extremely deliberate. They have the right to take things (and do, to the tune of 40K items a day in Toronto alone) if they are against the rules. If you want to keep them, you say ok, I won't get on the plane. There is a difference between "confiscated" and "voluntarily surrendered". If you go through an airport security station and they find pepper spray, that is *confiscated*. It's no longer your possession. You no longer have any say in what happens to that item. That is *confiscated*. If you go through the security station and they find a bottle of tequila, they don't *confiscate* it. Nothing I have read indicates that they may *confiscate* anything other than items that are *illegal* to possess in Canada (ie, the pepper spray.) That they will not allow you to proceed with the item in your possession does not mean that they have any right to *confiscate* the item. The item remains your property and you have a number of options (including voluntarily surrendering the item to the security desk, as MP Blackburn did.) The item was not *confiscated*, and MP Blackburn had a number of options. We know that he made two requests concerning his property: -please store this for me so I can retrieve it later. -please destroy this for me. Which are entirely reasonable requests. The fact that the airport security station was unable (or unwilling) to comply with those requests does not make them inherently unreasonable, it just means the security station was unable (or unwilling) to comply. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 23, 2010 Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 The item was not *confiscated*, and MP Blackburn had a number of options. Tell him that. He said they did. The reality is, if you want to proceed forward, you have no choice but to give it to them. There is no choice. If you decide to proceed forward, it is no longer your property. You're playing with semantics. He wanted to fly on the plane. He didn't have a choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted March 23, 2010 Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 Tell him that. He said they did. The reality is, if you want to proceed forward, you have no choice but to give it to them. There is no choice. If you decide to proceed forward, it is no longer your property. You're playing with semantics. He wanted to fly on the plane. He didn't have a choice. I think you already agreed that he had a number of choices. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 23, 2010 Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 I think you already agreed that he had a number of choices. -k Not as long as he wished to get on the plane, which he obviously did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted March 23, 2010 Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 Not as long as he wished to get on the plane, which he obviously did. Yeah? How about: "Ok, give it back to me and I will put it in a locker and pick it up on my return trip" or "ok, give it back to me and I will make arrangements with the airline to have it transported in checked baggage" or "Ok, give it back to me and I will give it to my wife who is over there waving goodbye" or "Ok, give it back to me and I will go pour it down a sink" Do you believe the security guy would have had a right to say no if Blackburn had opted to make one of these requests? -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 23, 2010 Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 I don't know. It probably depends if they considered the possibility that it could be dangerous. It's irrelevant though, because he didn't do any of those things. He had to give it up, or they had to take it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted March 23, 2010 Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 I don't know. It probably depends if they considered the possibility that it could be dangerous. If a bottle of tequila is dangerous, do you think the airport security guys should storm the duty-free shop? Have they been alerted to the grave threat just past the magazine shop?? It's irrelevant though, because he didn't do any of those things. He had to give it up, or they had to take it. He had to give it up (or make some other alternate arrangement), or they had to bar him from proceeding. If they'd taken it, they'd probably have been committing a crime. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 23, 2010 Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 If a bottle of tequila is dangerous, do you think the airport security guys should storm the duty-free shop? Have they been alerted to the grave threat just past the magazine shop?? But what was in his bottle? He had to give it up (or make some other alternate arrangement), or they had to bar him from proceeding. If they'd taken it, they'd probably have been committing a crime. Seeing as the bottle was not supposed to be in the security area at all, I doubt it would be a crime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted March 23, 2010 Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 Seeing as the bottle was not supposed to be in the security area at all, I doubt it would be a crime. You seriously think the security staff have the right to just take stuff if it's not allowed on the plane? -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 23, 2010 Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 (edited) You seriously think the security staff have the right to just take stuff if it's not allowed on the plane? Well...yes. Like I said, they take thousands of items a day. They describe it as confiscation. I think they can take something if they deem it threatening. They would probably call the police. Edited March 23, 2010 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted March 23, 2010 Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 Well...yes. Like I said, they take thousands of items a day. They describe it as confiscation. I think they can take something if they deem it threatening. They would probably call the police. People voluntarily leave thousands of items at airline security each day, because the cost of replacing a pair of nail-clippers or a bottle of shampoo is not worth the time spent arguing about it. Now, suppose there was traveller with a $150 dollar bottle of Scotch, who didn't realize there was a 100mL limit. That traveller IS going to say "ok, give that back to me so that I can have the airline send it in checked baggage." You really think the security guy can say "no, this could be threatening. You can't have it back." How about a laptop? If he decided the laptop looked threatening, could he keep that too? How about if he decided that your wedding ring could be used as a weapon? -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 23, 2010 Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 (edited) How about a laptop? If he decided the laptop looked threatening, could he keep that too? With that one, almost certainly. However, something that is thought to be dangerous wouldn't be kept by them at all. They'd hand it over to the police, probably immediately. Border officers can keep it for almost any reason, I'm not sure why airport security wouldn't be able to. Again, they and Blackburn both describe it as confiscation. Edited March 23, 2010 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted March 23, 2010 Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 You seriously think the security staff have the right to just take stuff if it's not allowed on the plane? -k Uh...That's the point of security.We had these new security regulations enacted because the terorist types potentially could have brought something on a plane and blow it up in the sky...They have been known to do exactly that sort of thing. So,even Mr.Blackburn is not above that law,I'll bet one he wholeheartedly supported,just because of his position.In fact,it makes him look MORE CLOWNISH because he is a public official who should know and act better... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted March 23, 2010 Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 With that one, almost certainly. However, something that is thought to be dangerous wouldn't be kept by them at all. They'd hand it over to the police, probably immediately. Border officers can keep it for almost any reason, I'm not sure why airport security wouldn't be able to. Again, they and Blackburn both describe it as confiscation. The CBSA's (border officers) are legit peace officers. Security guards are not. Kimmy is referring to the point at which the person is at the point of deciding whether or not they are wanting to get on the plane. At this point a person describes whether to hand something over to security guards or decides to keep said item and not get on the plane. Being as no illegal act is being committed, security has their hands tied and must follow procedure, which includes not confiscating random items. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YEGmann Posted March 23, 2010 Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 Yegmann, Just so we are clear: you do realize that you cannot carry more than 100ml of liquid onto the plane unless it has been sealed as a purchase from within the secure shopping part of the airport? Otherwise, it is checked. Not really, it is allowed to carry more than 100 ml of fluid through the security check. Up to 750, may be 850 ml would be completely OK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 23, 2010 Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 The CBSA's (border officers) are legit peace officers. Security guards are not. Again, the word confiscate is used by both parties in this case. Confiscate it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 23, 2010 Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 Not really, it is allowed to carry more than 100 ml of fluid through the security check. Up to 750, may be 850 ml would be completely OK. Ummm....no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted March 23, 2010 Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 (edited) Ummm....no. I have to wonder what alternate universe he's been flying in. As I read through this thread, I marvel at how many people think security should be responsible for making things better when people don't bother to find out what they can or can't take on board with them. It's no secret. Anyone can find out with a five minute search or phone call what's allowed and what isn't. In Blackburn's case, he knew what was allowed, yet attempted to bring a bottle of tequila on-board anyway, yet it was apparently security's obligation to try to help him get the booze on-board in spite of the fact that he's the one who was wrong. Whatever happened to personal responsibility? Edited March 23, 2010 by American Woman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted March 23, 2010 Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 Now, now, AW, you shouldn't scold without providing a link Liquids, aerosols and gels How to pack your liquids, aerosols and gelsContainers of liquids, aerosols or gels in your carry-on must be 100 ml/100 grams (3.4 oz) or less. All containers must fit in 1 clear, closed, resealable plastic bag no more than 1 litre (1 quart) in capacity. The approximate dimensions of a one litre/quart bag are 15.24 cm by 22.86 cm (6 in. by 9 in.) or 20 cm by 17.5 cm (8 in. by 7 in.). At the screening point, take your plastic bag out of your carry-on and place it in one of the provided trays. Drink or discard any beverages in containers over 100 ml before pre-board security screening. Any containers over 100 ml should be placed in checked baggage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Born Free Posted March 23, 2010 Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 In Blackburn's case, he knew what was allowed, yet attempted to bring a bottle of tequila on-board anyway, I think the jerk was planning to impersonate a beverage.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YEGmann Posted March 24, 2010 Report Share Posted March 24, 2010 (edited) For those who still do not know rules on aviation security. One more time. Slowly. Every person can bring through the airport security screening ANY NUMBER of containers with liquids, gels and/or aerosols. Two conditions must be met simultaneously: 1. EACH container must not exceed 100 ml. 2. All containers must fit in one closed and re-sealable plastic bag with a capacity of no more than 1 litre. Suitable bags are provided by security before the entrance to the security screening. Practically this means that every person can bring at least 750 ml of fluid with no problem. Milk and juice for two-year old or younger children are exempt from the size restrictions. Is this clear? If not I can elaborate further. Enjoy reading http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/aviationsecurity/liquidsban-43.htm Edited March 24, 2010 by YEGmann Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted March 24, 2010 Report Share Posted March 24, 2010 Uh...That's the point of security. No, the point of security is to keep those items off the plane. Again, I have yet to read anything affirming their right to take your property, except in the case where that item is illegal in Canada. With that one, almost certainly. However, something that is thought to be dangerous wouldn't be kept by them at all. They'd hand it over to the police, probably immediately. Border officers can keep it for almost any reason, I'm not sure why airport security wouldn't be able to. Again, they and Blackburn both describe it as confiscation. You really want to live in a country where the authorities can arbitrarily seize your property? -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted March 24, 2010 Report Share Posted March 24, 2010 You really want to live in a country where the authorities can arbitrarily seize your property? -k Is it arbitrary when the rule has been posted for everyone to see? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.